Several publications have already pivoted to examining what Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the US presidential race might mean for action on climate change. Axios says: “President Biden’s fight against climate change is unprecedented – but his legacy is fragile as he steps aside from seeking a second term. Why it matters: the US is the world’s largest historical carbon emitter and the second-largest today behind China. Future US emissions – and leaders’ success at spurring action abroad – will help sway how much Earth heats up and the damages in tow…‘President Biden leaves office with the strongest record on climate change of any president in US history,’ said Jason Bordoff, the founding director of Columbia’s Center on Global Energy Policy…[Biden] worked with Capitol Hill Democrats to enact by far the largest climate bill in history. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act provides hundreds of billions of dollars in tax subsidies and grants for low-carbon energy projects, supply chains, electric car purchases and far more. Biden also issued major emissions-cutting regulations; re-entered the Paris climate agreement that President Trump had abandoned; and wove climate into the fabric of decision-making across the government…[But] the durability of Biden’s work is unclear.…The bottom line: Biden’s legacy is very big – if it sticks.”

Some publications are already looking at the prospect of current vice-president Kamala Harris becoming the Democrats’ candidate. Politico examines how her views on climate change could differ from Biden’s: “Both have proposed spending historic sums on combating climate change and retooling the US economy to embrace clean sources instead of fossil fuels. Her plan would have gone even further. As a presidential candidate, Harris pitched a $10tn climate plan whose public and private investments would have dwarfed the total $1.6tn estimated federal cost of Biden’s major climate, energy, infrastructure and technology legislation. Unlike the administration’s current policies, she also would have instituted a ‘climate pollution fee’ and ended federal subsidies for fossil fuels. As a senator, she was an original co-sponsor of the non-binding resolution defining the Green New Deal, a blueprint for a large-scale mobilisation aimed at transitioning the US to 100% clean energy within a decade while providing people with job guarantees and ‘high-quality health care’. She was joined by liberals such as Ed Markey and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Harris also said she was ‘prepared to get rid of the filibuster’ to pass it in the face of GOP opposition to climate action.” Bloomberg says that Harris is “seen as a tougher oil industry opponent than Biden”, adding: “As California attorney general, Kamala Harris brought lawsuits against fossil fuel companies, prosecuted a pipeline company over an oil leak and investigated Exxon Mobil for misleading the public about climate change. Now, with the vice president suddenly in contention for the Democratic nomination after President Joe Biden abandoned his reelection bid Sunday, that track record is of deep interest to both the US energy industry and climate activists alike.” ABC News has an article headlined: “Where Kamala Harris stands on Green New Deal and climate initiatives.”

The UK is “not on course” to build enough wind and solar farms to meet the new Labour government’s stretching clean energy targets, reports the Financial Times. New forecasts by Cornwall Insight “highlight the scale of the challenge in transitioning away from fossil fuels”, says the newspaper. Under current plans, wind and solar power will be supplying about 44% of the UK’s electricity by 2030, up from 34.3% in 2023, but the “sizeable increase falls short of the roughly 67% the consultancy estimates would be required to meet the government’s target of decarbonising the UK’s power sector by 2030, a critical pledge from Labour during the general election campaign”. The newspaper continues: “Cornwall Insight’s analysis looked at typical deployment rates, as well as the amount of time it typically takes for developers to obtain planning permission, connections to the electricity grid and state subsidy contracts where needed. The analysis suggests ministers are likely to need to make big changes to the way Britain gets energy projects built if it wants to meet the 2030 target…The findings come after Stonehaven, another consultancy, on Friday urged the government to give its planned new state-owned energy system operator responsibility for deciding where large-scale energy projects needed to be built.” The Sunday Times carries a feature headlined: “England built one wind turbine on land last year – 9,000 to go.” It continues: “There are 9,027 onshore turbines in Britain, providing a combined total of 15 gigawatts of power. To double that in five years, experts say, is a huge challenge.” [The article later explains that doubling the number of turbines is not required because newer turbines are larger and more efficient, plus older wind farms can be “repowered” by replacing old turbines with bigger ones that can generate much more power.] The Observer has an article under the headline: “The great pylon pile-on: can councils’ opposition scupper Labour’s ‘clean power’ revolution?” The Times reports the views of Darren Davidson, the UK boss of Siemens Energy: “The government must provide greater clarity over its offshore wind budgets if Britain is to hit an ambitious target to quadruple output from the green energy source by the end of the decade, one of the world’s largest builders of wind turbines has warned…[He] has called on the government to set out how much support it will provide for new wind projects over multiple years, rather than on an annual basis.” And the Guardian covers a new report by the Resolution Foundation which concludes that the new government will need to “take on net-zero nimbys” and ramp up public investment to decarbonise Britain’s homes, transport and electricity system: “It said many renewables projects would take place in wealthier parts of the country, and two-thirds of proposed solar projects would be in the richest 40% of neighbourhoods.”

Separately, the Times reports that the UK’s new energy secretary Ed Miliband will “press ahead” with a new generation of “mini nuclear” power plants, with plans to unveil reactor designs by September. The newspaper adds: “Looser planning rules are expected to allow these reactors almost anywhere outside built-up areas, in the next stage of a clean-energy blitz that has resulted in Miliband lifting a ban on onshore wind farms and approv[ing] a host of big solar arrays. Since taking office, Miliband has given planning consent to more solar power than has been installed in the past year, overriding protests from rural MPs to give the green light to projects that will power the equivalent of 400,000 homes. He is now turning his attention to nuclear power, with a final decision on Sizewell C due, alongside efforts to finish the Hinkley Point C plant. Miliband has also committed to continuing the previous government’s drive to make Britain a world leader in small modular reactors.” The Mail on Sunday reports: “A third runway at Heathrow Airport could finally be built after more than 20 years of public wrangling, government sources have indicated. The £14bn plan would form part of chancellor Rachel Reeves’ new dash for growth, which she describes in today’s Mail on Sunday as her version of Nigel Lawson’s ‘Big Bang’ economic reform during Margaret Thatcher’s administration…A government source said that Sir Keir Starmer’s administration would react positively if Heathrow resubmitted the plan. The source said: ‘The ball is in Heathrow’s court. If another submission is received it will be assessed in line with our stated aim of boosting growth, as long as it is also compatible with strict environmental standards.’” Today’s Daily Mail follows up the story, saying: “Labour is willing to back plans for a third runway at Heathrow despite opposition from Ed Miliband.”

Meanwhile, in other UK news, there is continuing reaction to the sentencing of Just Stop Oil protestors last week. The Guardian says that the “lengthy multi-year sentences handed to Just Stop Oil activists are ‘not acceptable in a democracy’, a UN special rapporteur has said, as the government faced growing pressure to reverse the previous administration’s ‘hardline anti-protest’ approach”. A separate Guardian article is headlined: “Celebrities add voices to outcry over severity of Just Stop Oil sentences.” (See Comment below.) Finally, a third Guardian article reports: “More than half of the tree species at Kew’s Royal Botanical Gardens are at risk of death because of climate breakdown, a study by the public body has found.”

The western part of the US is “sweating through another round of record-breaking heat as a wave is forecast to produce triple-digit temperatures in cities from Southern California to northern Idaho through the middle of the week”, reports Reuters. The newswire adds: “Some 30 million people are under heat advisories or excessive heat warnings in effect through Wednesday, with some projections topping 110F (43C), the National Weather Service (NWS) said on Sunday. Those states include parts of California, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. Central Oregon and parts of Washington are also under elevated threats of wildfires due to hot and dry weather conditions, the NWS said.” The Financial Times says the heatwave is “raising fresh concerns over the increasing health risks posed by soaring temperatures and humidity”. The newspaper continues: “Scientists are increasingly focused on so-called wet bulb temperatures, which factors in the effect of humidity on the human body and gives a more sophisticated portrait of weather conditions than temperature alone. As air temperatures rise, the warm air holds more moisture, limiting the ability of the human body to cool itself down through sweating. The US’s National Weather Service describes Wet Bulb Globe Temperature as an ‘experimental forecast tool’ designed to indicate the expected level of heat stress on the human body, by taking into account all the factors of air temperature, humidity, wind speed and solar radiation.”

Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports: “The Rio Grande is no longer a reliable source of water for South Texas. That’s the sobering conclusion Rio Grande Valley officials are facing as water levels at the international reservoirs that feed into the river remain dangerously low – and a hurricane that could have quenched the area’s thirst turned away from the region as it neared the Texas coast. Although a high number of storms are forecast this hurricane season, relief is far from guaranteed and as the drought drags on.” Another AP article says: “Heat-related deaths in Texas climb after Beryl left millions without power.” And a third AP article is headlined: “Frozen treats, cold showers and lots of ice; Florida zoo works to protect animals from summer heat.” The Washington Post has published a news feature headlined: “A post-fire ‘nightmare’ in New Mexico: eight floods in four weeks.” And the Los Angeles Times says: “Millions of Californians live near oil and gas wells that are in the path of wildfires.”

In other reporting of extreme heat around the planet, the Guardian says that a “fierce heatwave is continuing to roll across southern and central Europe, bringing temperatures of up to 44C (111.2F) to parts of Spain, sparking forest fires in Greece and Croatia, and prompting governments to urge people to take special care as the mercury rises”. The Daily Express says that the “Persian Gulf has been experiencing an extreme and potentially life-threatening heatwave, with temperatures and humidity levels soaring to triple-digits”. Canada’s Globe and Mail reports that “extreme heat is fuelling wildfires in Alberta and British Columbia forcing hundreds to flee”. In the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, Greater Kashmir reports that the region is “grappling with an intense heatwave”, adding: “The continuous dry weather has led to a significant decrease in water levels across various water bodies in Kashmir. This has had a profound impact on agriculture, drinking water supply and overall daily life.” And the Associated Press has a news feature under the headline: “Drought threatens millions of children as school dropouts rise along with hunger in southern Africa.”

Fossil-fuel producing countries and companies are being “asked to pay into a new international fund to help poor countries cope with the effects of the climate crisis”, reports the Guardian. The newspaper continues: “The climate investment fund is being set up by the Azerbaijan government, host country of the COP29 UN climate summit in November. The Climate Finance Action Fund will take financial contributions from fossil-fuel-producing countries and companies and use the money to invest in projects in the developing world that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help build resilience to the impacts of extreme weather.” The Guardian quotes Yalchin Rafiyev, the chief negotiator for the COP29 presidency, saying: “Traditional funding methods have proven to be inadequate to the challenges of the climate crisis, so we have decided on a different approach. The fund will be capitalised with contributions from fossil-fuel countries and companies and will catalyse the private sector. Any developing country will be eligible [to receive money from] the fund.” But, the newspaper adds: “Contributions to the fund will be voluntary and no mechanism is proposed to force the countries and companies most responsible for greenhouse gas emissions to pay into it. This falls well short of the levy on fossil fuels that some campaigners have been calling for.” Politico says: “Azerbaijan, the host of this year’s global climate talks, has suggested that continued fossil fuel extraction is compatible with the Paris Agreement. With four months to go until COP29 kicks off in Baku, the Azerbaijani presidency on Friday announced a flurry of ‘initiatives’ – a set of 14 non-binding pledges and partnerships that countries are encouraged to sign up to at the summit. At the same press conference, the summit’s chief executive Elnur Soltanov suggested that the Paris climate accord – under which countries agreed to keep global warming below 2C and ideally to 1.5C – does not necessarily mean reducing fossil fuel production.” [This contradicts the findings of a variety of experts, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the International Energy Agency.]

Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports: “Azerbaijan has accused the EU of treating the country as a ‘firefighter’ by only committing to short-term gas deals despite asking the country to boost exports of the fuel to the bloc. Baku needed the certainty of long-term contracts in order to raise the finance required to increase gas production in the Caspian Sea and meet the additional EU demand, Vaqif Sadiqov, Azerbaijan’s ambassador to the EU, told the Financial Times.” The newspaper continues: “Despite ‘deep discussions’ with the European Commission about how to meet the target, Sadiqov said EU operators were reluctant to sign long contracts because of the bloc’s ambition to curb its consumption of fossil fuels and reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050…Azerbaijan, which relies heavily on oil and gas revenues, is due to host the UN’s annual COP climate summit in November this year. Some diplomats and negotiators have privately expressed concern that the country was reluctant to address the question of how to shift away from fossil fuels.”

Chinese wind turbine-makers have “clinched their first order in Germany, as they build momentum in the European market and add to concern in the EU industry that it faces an existential threat”, reports Reuters. The newswire adds: “Tensions are high between Beijing and Brussels, the world’s two biggest wind markets, as the European Commission, the EU executive, has launched an investigation into whether Chinese players enjoy unfair subsidies.”

In other China news, the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post (SCMP) reports that Donald Trump says that he would make imported vehicles, including those from China, “unsellable in the US”, threatening to “put a tariff of approximately 100% to 200% on each car”. Meanwhile, Reuters reports that an earthquake in Chile, a major exporter to China of lithium chemicals essential to EV batteries, has caused an increase in China’s lithium prices. Reuters says that Thailand, the largest overseas market of China’s BYD EV manufacturer, will continue its probe into discounts from the company, “despite a cash-back programme from its distributor in response to a backlash from consumers who felt they overpaid for their EVs”. And China and Russia held a conference on Sunday about trade, as well as “cooperation in energy and agriculture”, reports the state-run newspaper Global Times. 

Meanwhile, energy news outlet BJX News carries an article from the China Energy Media Group, arguing that “China urgently needs to establish a coordinated electricity-carbon mechanism…to enhance the international recognition of China’s carbon market and green certificates” as global “green barriers” become “increasingly prevalent”. The Communist party-affiliated newspaper People’s Daily quotes Zhang Lin, a director at the China Electricity Council (CEC), saying that “China’s national average coal consumption for electricity supply” decreased by 1.6 grams/kWh from 2021-2023. Financial media Caixin says “China’s first virtual power plant supplying purely green electricity has commenced formal operations”. Economic news outlet Jiemian reports that, according to China’s National Energy Administration (NEA), in the first half of this year, the total electricity consumption reached 4,657.5 terawatt-hours (TWh), an increase of 8.1% year-on-year.

Elsewhere, a communique from the Chinese Communist party’s recently closed “third plenum” – an important meeting traditionally associated with major economic reforms – says that “the government must improve the monitoring and prevention of natural disasters, especially floods”, SCMP reports. (Carbon Brief has published a Q&A on the party’s commitment to “new quality productive forces” that was promoted at the meeting.) Finally, the Financial Times has published a comment piece by Brett Christophers, titled: “We must not mistake China’s success on green energy for a global one.”

Business associations and trade unions in Germany are opposed to dividing the electricity market into multiple price zones, a step which “should allow regions with prevailing green energy generation to pay less network charges”, reports Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ). The newspaper explains that wind power from the north of Germany often cannot be distributed to “consumption centres in the south, forcing grid operators to intervene, curtailing offshore windfarms and ramping up gas power plants in the south”. Ministers from Germany’s coastal states, which have “heavily” invested in wind power and the necessary grid infrastructure, have long “complained” about high network charges, which lead to higher electricity prices, notes Table.Media. It quotes Dirk Messner, president of the German Environment Agency (UBA), who agrees that the current incentive system is “poorly designed”, noting that, “ideally, we should be relieving those who are moving in the right direction and penalising those who are not progressing quickly enough”. 

Meanwhile, Der Spiegel reports that the German Green party might put forward a candidate for chancellor in the next federal election “despite currently weak poll numbers”. The outlet continues that the German vice-chancellor and minister of economy and climate action, Robert Habeck, is considered “the clear favourite” for a potential chancellor candidacy after foreign minister Annalena Baerbock announced she would not run again. With Baerbock as the candidate, the Greens achieved 14.7% in the 2021 Bundestag election, notes the outlet. Finally, FAZ looks at Germany’s plans to import two-thirds of its hydrogen needs by 2045, primarily from North Africa, using existing gas pipelines for transport through Italy and Austria. However, this project, known as the SouthH2 Corridor, “faces uncertainties due to past failed projects and current challenges in investment and infrastructure”, explains the newspaper. And the Associated Press says that Germany’s chancellor has been in Serbia for a “lithium deal that could reduce Europe’s dependency on China”.

An editorial in the Guardian begins: “Sir Keir Starmer’s legislative plan to green Britain has arrived not a moment too soon. Last week, the government’s advisers warned that only a third of the carbon reductions required by law would be met under existing plans [defined as ‘credible’ by the Climate Change Committee]…That is why Labour’s king’s speech, which put the environment at the centre of policymaking, was so welcome. Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, won the argument that the urgency of the climate emergency needed a bigger, more interventionist state. Greening the economy solely through market mechanisms has not unleashed its potential. To change this, Labour confirmed bills to set up state-owned Great British Energy…There are some valid doubts about whether its limited budget – £8.3bn over five years – will mean GB Energy is just a co-investor in schemes rather than a serious rival to private investors. Without well-funded state intervention, the Common Wealth thinktank points out, the government would end up with the current market model of ‘uncoordinated [investment], replete with barriers and delays and vulnerable to policy errors’. Miliband won’t deliver a green transition – and good jobs – by sticking to the status quo.” The editorial concludes: “To demonstrate its superiority, GB Energy must translate low-cost clean energy generation into lower bills. This means probably adopting a policy like the New Economics Foundation’s ‘energy guarantee’ to protect essential needs, reduce bills and cut carbon emissions. This scheme seeks to provide energy for free, or at low cost, while applying a premium to higher levels of usage – which would incentivise investment in energy efficiency and renewables.”

Meanwhile, in contrast, right-leaning newspapers continue to express scepticism and hostility about Labour’s plans, often by aiming personalised attacks at Ed Miliband. For example, the climate-sceptic commentator Andew Neil writes in the Daily Mail that “the policies green zealot Ed Miliband is already pursuing will hinder growth, kill jobs and increase fuel bills”. Fellow climate-sceptic Zoe Strimpel in the Sunday Telegraph writes: “Net-zero fanatics in the Greens and in Labour don’t seem to understand why making the country ugly, with onshore wind farms, pylons, hideous housing developments on protected land, isn’t the silver bullet it seems, not least because nuclear is the option that makes sense.” The Sunday Times clears space for yet another climate-sceptic commentator, Dominic Lawson, who writes: “Hilariously, opposition [to Labour’s plans for onshore wind] had come from Green Party councillors, who helped win over the planning inspectorate in the case of a proposed 2,500-acre solar farm on the Suffolk/Cambridgeshire border now suddenly pushed through by Miliband: it had declared that the project was a risk to ground-nesting birds and also cited loss of open countryside.” Additionally, the Times runs a comment piece by radio presenter Dominic O’Connell who argues: “Labour’s green ‘mission control’ is not such a grand idea. Lofty titles conceal the reality that decarbonising the electricity grid is unlikely by 2030.”

There is continuing reaction in the UK newspaper to the sentencing last week of five Just Stop Oil protestors. In the Times, Will Lloyd writes: “The apocalyptic views of Extinction Rebellion co-founder Roger Hallam are shared by rising numbers of green supporters…On the vanity count, the verdict is surely in. Hallam suffers from a full-blown sainthood complex, a desire to be the British Gandhi. You might forgive him his (sadly accurate) self-description during his latest trial that he is the ‘most influential environmentalist in the country apart from David Attenborough’.” Climate-sceptic Dominic Lawson has a comment piece in the Daily Mail headlined: “The Just Stop Oil founder dreamt of my violent death. So why are police indulging the deluded fanatics who follow him?” In the Observer, chief leader writer Sonia Sodhu argues: “Yes, five years in jail is too harsh, but the Just Stop Oil Five shouldn’t have done it.”

In contrast, the Guardian carries a joint comment piece by Chris Packham and Dale Vince who write: “You may find Just Stop Oil annoying. You may dislike their tactics. But they do not belong in prison. These protesters are shouting ‘fire’ while the world burns. A society that locks them up cannot be called democratic.”

The Financial Times has published a news feature on how a “global supply glut has pummelled solar panel prices over the past two years, leaving swaths of Europe’s manufacturers unprofitable, threatening US President Joe Biden’s ambition to turn America into a renewable energy force and even ricocheting back on the Chinese companies that dominate the global market”. It continues: “Yet as companies in Europe, the US and China cut jobs, delay projects and mothball facilities, an abundance of cheap solar panels has delivered one significant upside – consumers and businesses are installing them in ever greater numbers. Electricity generated from solar power is expected to surpass that of wind and nuclear by 2028, according to the International Energy Agency. The picture underlines the quandary confronting governments that have pledged to decarbonise their economies, but will find doing so harder unless the historic shift from fossil fuels is both affordable for the public and creates new jobs.”

Elsewhere, Sky News economics editor Ed Conway writes in the Sunday Times: “Russian gas is fuelling Europe again [EU imports from Russia are up 22% year-on-year but remain 69% lower than before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.]…We could stop this…Europe could go cold turkey and stop accepting any Russian gas. But it would involve more economic sacrifice. Energy prices would go back up again. The cost of living crisis would have the sequel no one wants to see. So for the time being it suits everyone to ignore the fact that, even as we pledge our unending support to the Ukrainians, Europe is also quietly helping to finance Putin’s war machine.” Finally, Bloomberg has a comment piece by Mark Gongloff headlined: “The market’s next black swan is climate change. Failing to do more to slow the planetary heating caused by greenhouse-gas emissions will gouge 40% from global stock valuations.”

A new study reveals that none of Africa’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) – documents which map a country’s climate “priorities, needs and commitments”, and provide details on implementation – provide “fully robust” standards to enable progress tracking. The authors assess the coverage, consistency and robustness in NAPs and NDCs. The study finds that 53% of NAPs and 8% of NDCs “cover all elements needed for providing sufficient baselines for tracking adaptation progress”. The authors add that 40% of NAPs and 9% of NDCs provide “consistent links between climate risk assessment, planning, implementation and tracking”.